Microsoft has opened a Linux-on-the-desktop incubator, which hopes to host, fund and collaborate with several of the most inventive desktop Linux startups, in exchange for first right-of-refusal of the products going to market.
Plus it says that this price is for businesses, and that plans for use by private people are "probably a year away" -- implying that it won't take that long until they have something affordable by end-users.
Umh -- your comment would make sense if the author had indeed written missing, rather than the neutral absent. I can't detect the bias in saying that C includes concepts LISP doesn't and vice versa.
Not to be confused with pop-up ads, which open new windows and clutter virtual desktops, these floaters, or overlays, or popovers (no one can agree on a name).
Somewhat off-topic, but it amuses the hell out of me when people call copyright infringement "piracy" but then believe that not all copyright infringement is piracy.
From the interview (one of the admins of the bittorrent tracker speaking):
[T]he tracker isn't built on pirated files. Drivers, service manuals, user guides, and old games which are not available anymore or are from companies which no longer exist. There are videos of recent events and old favorites which you can't buy. I have never seen the tracker without a significant amount of files which aren't pirated.
You see, all of these are copyrighted unless they're around a hundred years old (depending on jurisdiction). Of course distributing them is not copyright infringement ("piracy") if you have permission by the copyright holders, but I highly doubt this site has permission to distribute those service manuals and -- especially -- games.
Just because the company making them is gone doesn't mean there isn't a copyright holder -- there's always some creditor happy to pick them up. They may not sell the game any more (at least currently), but that matters zilch. They may not be suing you because they don't have enough to gain from it, but that doesn't mean they can't and it doesn't mean that this isn't copyright infringement.
Yes, it sucks. You see, that's one reason why some people think copyright law sucks. Especially with the super-long copyright terms of today.
I find people annoying who copy old proprietary games, don't feel that they're doing anything wrong, and then go, "I totally respect copyright law! I would never pirate anything!" If you think copyright is so cool, how come you are so happy to bend it when it's inconvenient?
(NB. I admit that I haven't actually checked the site; the games there may yet be under license terms that permit re-distribution after the company making them has folded. If so, sorry of associating the general rant with this specific case. But I doubt it.)
So why don't you make 'darcs get' use --partial by default, and require 'darcs get --all' to get the full history? Since most people will be familiar with 'cvs checkout' and a couple of people with 'tla get,' both of which get only the current version, it seems reasonable to me to make the default what people expect -- with the speed that people expect?
I like having the full history, but I think that in the usual case "check out the current version in 3 minutes" is a more reasonable default than "check out the whole history in 30 minutes." I think most 'darcs gets' will be of projects maintained by someone else where you want to look at the source or perhaps make a small modification to the current version. In that scenario, you want to go ahead ASAP, and you don't usually need the history.
Sorry -- I'm not quite following. Maybe I didn't make clear enough that I was talking about the JCP (Java Community Process)? I don't understand what that has to do with agile development?:-)
I didn't want to say that a stable system can only be created through a well-defined process. I wanted to say that the JCP is not an example of the bazaar model, which, according to Eric, is characterized by the emergence of a stable system without a top-down process.
Linus Torvalds's style of development?release early and often, delegate everything you can, be open to the point of promiscuity?came as a surprise. No quiet, reverent cathedral-building here?rather, the Linux community seemed to resemble a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches (aptly symbolized by the Linux archive sites, who'd take submissions from anyone) out of which a coherent and stable system could seemingly emerge only by a succession of miracles.
The fact that this bazaar style seemed to work, and work well, came as a distinct shock. As I learned my way around, I worked hard not just at individual projects, but also at trying to understand why the Linux world not only didn't fly apart in confusion but seemed to go from strength to strength at a speed barely imaginable to cathedral-builders.
That has nothing to do with how Jonathan now uses the word. The JCP is not "release early, release often." And it may have different agendas and approaches, but the coherent and stable system certainly doesn't emerge by a succession of miracles -- it emerges by a very clearly defined process (no matter whether that is good or bad, it's not bazaar-style).
The cathedral means developing inside a small circle and releasing only in great intervals. The bazaar means releasing all the time and letting lots of people submit patches. By that definition, the JCP is certainly more cathedral-like than Linux.
(Note that the cathedral/bazaar difference doesn't refer to free vs. non-free; the FSF's early free software was developed in a more of a cathedral model.)
It is not making any further restrictions because this license is not an extension of GPL but rather a licence that corresponds to the GPL under french law.
I think I understand what you are getting at. You are comparing the goals of the two licenses, and say that they are basically equivalent in their goals and in the obligations they impose on the licensee, and that any differences are there because they are necessary under French law (or the license's authors think so -- as always, the courts have the final word), not to impose additional restrictions on the licensees. I'm sure you're right.
If I say that I believe that this license has restrictions the GPL does not have, I'm not making a value judgement about this license, saying that it should or could be different. I am merely saying that it places a restriction on the licensee that the GPL does not place on them. I'm not saying that is a bad thing.
The reason that I'm saying this at all is that it was claimed that the license is "GPL-compatible." As I said, I understand this to mean that I can take parts of a program under this license and parts of a program under the GPL, make a new program using both parts, and distribute the results without violating either license. The GPL prohibits me to do this if I cannot offer the new program without any additional restrictions. So without saying that the additional restrictions are unnecessary, I am saying that they make the license incompatible with the GPL.
I am not saying, if you believe this, that the license should be GPL-compatible even if this means that it is invalid under French law. I would say, though, that if this license has to be incompatible with the GPL to comply with French law, then it's important to point this out. For example, it could motivate a French developer to dual-license their work under this license and under the GPL, so that someone in a different jurisdiction can legally combine their code with the code of a GPLed program and distribute the result.
(Of course, if my argument is wrong and this license is GPL-compatible, I would like to hear about it. But if I understand you correctly, you are not contesting that this license gives the licensee additional restrictions, you are just saying that I shouldn't judge that negatively.)
I still feel you are making a value judgement based on a US bias. This is a replacement for the GPL under french law and GPL is not a valid licence in that country.
I'm just pointing out that contrary to what has been claimed, I do not believe that this license is compatible to the GPL, in the sense that someone in a jurisdiction where the GPL applies can take code under this license and combine it with GPLed code. I am not making a value judgement, just pointing something out because it would have practical consequences for code that is licensed under this license and not also under the GPL.
I also don't understand why you would assume that I have a US bias, rather than, say, a German or a Finnish bias.
GPL is based on US law. The current GPL is incompatible with french law.
I don't know French law, so I'll accept this.
The inconsistencies you are seeing are the result of each licence complying with the norms of copyright law in their respective jurisdictions. You cannot expect GPL to impose US copyright law on other jurisdictions.
Of course not. I'm just saying I believe this license is not compatible with the GPL. I'm not trying to say that this is the fault of this license rather than the GPL or the different copyright systems or whatever.
I believe that these two licences are still compatible.
Well, I gave an argument why I believe that the licenses are incompatible -- the GPL says no further restrictions and this license makes a further restriction. I would still be interested in understanding why you think this argument is wrong?
Perhaps I don't understand your concept of "compatible." The way I understand the term is that if a program is licensed under this license, I can take code from it and incorporate it into a GPLed program without asking special permission from either program's author. For example, the old, advertising clause MIT license was not GPL-compatible under this definition, but the X license is, because I can take X code and stick it into a GPLed program without violating the license.
I believe that under this definition, this license isn't GPL-compatible because if I take code under this license, and put it into a GPLed program, I'm prohibited by the GPL to distribute the modified program, because I cannot do so without the additional restriction that French law governs the interpretation of the license of part of the program.
I'm just saying that I believe the licenses are incompatible, and asking you why you don't think so. I'm not saying that I believe this is avoidable given the different copyright systems (I'm not competent enough to judge this). A workaround could be to dual-license programs under this license and the GPL, which would clearly make the whole GPL-compatible.
Again, it would be nice if you could explain why you think I'm wrong. Thanks.
In case you have not noticed, this planet is still composed of separate soveriegn nations which have not as of yet been assimilated into the US.
Excuse me, but why do you believe I have a national bias, for the US at that, just because I have said that I believe that these two licenses are incompatible? Do you think that it's impossible to read the licenses and make this judgement without having this kind of bias?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your argument. Why would this license being based on French law make it compatible with the GPL, even though it includes a restriction that is not included in the GPL? Please elaborate.
Well, if anyone's still reading so far down the article, although I'm not an FSFie or a lawyer, I'm sure this license won't be considered GPL-compatible by the FSF.
Article 13 of the English translation says: "The Agreement is governed by French law.... In the absence of an out-of-court settlement within two (2) months as from their occurrence, and unless emergency proceedings are necessary, the disagreements or disputes shall be referred to the Paris Courts having jurisdiction, by the first Party to take action."
This is very clearly a restriction the GPL does not make (it doesn't define any court having jurisdiction), and the GPL says that no additional restrictions may be added to a GPL'ed program. Defining which law governs the interpretation of the license is exactly why the license of Python 1.6b1 and later versions through 2.1 is not considered GPL-compatible by the FSF.
I haven't read the rest of the license in detail, but given that they didn't even get this one right, which has been a problem with one quite well-known project's license before, I don't have too high hopes...
I understand all you said. I am also sure about the legality about not licensing a patent: If the patent holder uses the patent, they don't have to license it. (If they do not use it, compulsory licensing may be decided by a court.)
You are right that if I am a megacorp with millions of dollars I have a good chance at being able to license any particular patent for proprietary software development. I happen not to be a megacorp, and I happen to develop free software. I don't realistically have a chance to pay patent royalties even for a proprietary product, much less the royalties that would make the patent holder license their patent for all free software.
Yes, I can develop improvements and patent them, but not use them. GREAT! So not only can I not use the idea that the other person has patented, but nobody else can use my idea, either! (Except if they have the pockets to give me a good deal.) What a wonderful world!
I think they issue patents for obviously stupid stuff, but that's not really the big problem: who cares if infinite compression is patented, given that we know you cannot do it anyway?
It's much more of a problem that obvious things are patented -- for example, a LOT of webshop features that you would think obvious have been the subject of patents that have been issued by the European Patent Office.
The point of the directive, as the EU parliament made it, was to outlaw all software patents. The point of the directive as the council made it (and the ones who actually wrote it are the patent office officials) is to allow all those patents in practice.
My guess is that they were made by someone from the free software camp who managed to attend the meeting, but I don't actually know. Someone else, maybe?
The protection that we need is the protection from getting sued if we have an innovative idea and dare to publish the resulting software. Software patents make great weapons against small developers who cannot afford a patent lawsuit.
Besides, what kind of dorky attitude is it that nobody should be allowed to build on an idea for twenty years?!? Imagine that somebody has had a trivial idea and you get the same idea from elsewhere, and build something much larger on it. Well, you cannot use your ideas for the next twenty years if the first person has patented it.
.ogg files and transcripts of the decisionmaking process are here.
I'm disappointed that the German government voted for after initially saying they'd at least abstain -- my understanding is that they could have held up the process if they had at least abstained.:-(
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has opened a Linux-on-the-desktop incubator, which hopes to host, fund and collaborate with several of the most inventive desktop Linux startups, in exchange for first right-of-refusal of the products going to market.
You know, First Monday, Second Monday, Third Monday, [... coupla inbetween...], Googolth Monday.
Plus it says that this price is for businesses, and that plans for use by private people are "probably a year away" -- implying that it won't take that long until they have something affordable by end-users.
Supertux!!!
'nuff said. I'll go back to play.
Umh -- your comment would make sense if the author had indeed written missing, rather than the neutral absent. I can't detect the bias in saying that C includes concepts LISP doesn't and vice versa.
It's certainly better than my French.
Sure, no problem, here you go:
- s/germany/Germany/
- s/braincells/brain cells/
- s/wether/whether/
- s/regreted/regretted/
- s/allways/always/
- s/Linux Distro/Linux distro
- s/on the bank/in the bank/
- s/it's not such a big problem taking hold of/it's not such a big problem to take hold of/ [I believe]
- s/interessting/interesting/
- s/lot's/lots/
- s/aswell/as well/
In your sig:You're welcome :-)
Hey, I can agree on a name! Poopovers it is!
From the interview (one of the admins of the bittorrent tracker speaking):
You see, all of these are copyrighted unless they're around a hundred years old (depending on jurisdiction). Of course distributing them is not copyright infringement ("piracy") if you have permission by the copyright holders, but I highly doubt this site has permission to distribute those service manuals and -- especially -- games.Just because the company making them is gone doesn't mean there isn't a copyright holder -- there's always some creditor happy to pick them up. They may not sell the game any more (at least currently), but that matters zilch. They may not be suing you because they don't have enough to gain from it, but that doesn't mean they can't and it doesn't mean that this isn't copyright infringement.
Yes, it sucks. You see, that's one reason why some people think copyright law sucks. Especially with the super-long copyright terms of today.
I find people annoying who copy old proprietary games, don't feel that they're doing anything wrong, and then go, "I totally respect copyright law! I would never pirate anything!" If you think copyright is so cool, how come you are so happy to bend it when it's inconvenient?
(NB. I admit that I haven't actually checked the site; the games there may yet be under license terms that permit re-distribution after the company making them has folded. If so, sorry of associating the general rant with this specific case. But I doubt it.)
Actually, much more like looking them up in the white pages and finding a competitor's ad next to it, rather than the yellow ones.
P != NP.
I like having the full history, but I think that in the usual case "check out the current version in 3 minutes" is a more reasonable default than "check out the whole history in 30 minutes." I think most 'darcs gets' will be of projects maintained by someone else where you want to look at the source or perhaps make a small modification to the current version. In that scenario, you want to go ahead ASAP, and you don't usually need the history.
BTW -- congrats on the great work on darcs!
I didn't want to say that a stable system can only be created through a well-defined process. I wanted to say that the JCP is not an example of the bazaar model, which, according to Eric, is characterized by the emergence of a stable system without a top-down process.
The cathedral means developing inside a small circle and releasing only in great intervals. The bazaar means releasing all the time and letting lots of people submit patches. By that definition, the JCP is certainly more cathedral-like than Linux.
(Note that the cathedral/bazaar difference doesn't refer to free vs. non-free; the FSF's early free software was developed in a more of a cathedral model.)
(I'm sorry. I know you're serious. But "In Canada" reminded me too much of another "in" phrase popular on /. to resist the urge :-))
I think I understand what you are getting at. You are comparing the goals of the two licenses, and say that they are basically equivalent in their goals and in the obligations they impose on the licensee, and that any differences are there because they are necessary under French law (or the license's authors think so -- as always, the courts have the final word), not to impose additional restrictions on the licensees. I'm sure you're right.
If I say that I believe that this license has restrictions the GPL does not have, I'm not making a value judgement about this license, saying that it should or could be different. I am merely saying that it places a restriction on the licensee that the GPL does not place on them. I'm not saying that is a bad thing.
The reason that I'm saying this at all is that it was claimed that the license is "GPL-compatible." As I said, I understand this to mean that I can take parts of a program under this license and parts of a program under the GPL, make a new program using both parts, and distribute the results without violating either license. The GPL prohibits me to do this if I cannot offer the new program without any additional restrictions. So without saying that the additional restrictions are unnecessary, I am saying that they make the license incompatible with the GPL.
I am not saying, if you believe this, that the license should be GPL-compatible even if this means that it is invalid under French law. I would say, though, that if this license has to be incompatible with the GPL to comply with French law, then it's important to point this out. For example, it could motivate a French developer to dual-license their work under this license and under the GPL, so that someone in a different jurisdiction can legally combine their code with the code of a GPLed program and distribute the result.
(Of course, if my argument is wrong and this license is GPL-compatible, I would like to hear about it. But if I understand you correctly, you are not contesting that this license gives the licensee additional restrictions, you are just saying that I shouldn't judge that negatively.)
I'm just pointing out that contrary to what has been claimed, I do not believe that this license is compatible to the GPL, in the sense that someone in a jurisdiction where the GPL applies can take code under this license and combine it with GPLed code. I am not making a value judgement, just pointing something out because it would have practical consequences for code that is licensed under this license and not also under the GPL.
I also don't understand why you would assume that I have a US bias, rather than, say, a German or a Finnish bias.
I don't know French law, so I'll accept this.
Of course not. I'm just saying I believe this license is not compatible with the GPL. I'm not trying to say that this is the fault of this license rather than the GPL or the different copyright systems or whatever.
Well, I gave an argument why I believe that the licenses are incompatible -- the GPL says no further restrictions and this license makes a further restriction. I would still be interested in understanding why you think this argument is wrong?
Perhaps I don't understand your concept of "compatible." The way I understand the term is that if a program is licensed under this license, I can take code from it and incorporate it into a GPLed program without asking special permission from either program's author. For example, the old, advertising clause MIT license was not GPL-compatible under this definition, but the X license is, because I can take X code and stick it into a GPLed program without violating the license.
I believe that under this definition, this license isn't GPL-compatible because if I take code under this license, and put it into a GPLed program, I'm prohibited by the GPL to distribute the modified program, because I cannot do so without the additional restriction that French law governs the interpretation of the license of part of the program.
I'm just saying that I believe the licenses are incompatible, and asking you why you don't think so. I'm not saying that I believe this is avoidable given the different copyright systems (I'm not competent enough to judge this). A workaround could be to dual-license programs under this license and the GPL, which would clearly make the whole GPL-compatible.
Again, it would be nice if you could explain why you think I'm wrong. Thanks.
Excuse me, but why do you believe I have a national bias, for the US at that, just because I have said that I believe that these two licenses are incompatible? Do you think that it's impossible to read the licenses and make this judgement without having this kind of bias?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your argument. Why would this license being based on French law make it compatible with the GPL, even though it includes a restriction that is not included in the GPL? Please elaborate.
Article 13 of the English translation says: "The Agreement is governed by French law. ... In the absence of an out-of-court settlement within two (2) months as from their occurrence, and unless emergency proceedings are necessary, the disagreements or disputes shall be referred to the Paris Courts having jurisdiction, by the first Party to take action."
This is very clearly a restriction the GPL does not make (it doesn't define any court having jurisdiction), and the GPL says that no additional restrictions may be added to a GPL'ed program. Defining which law governs the interpretation of the license is exactly why the license of Python 1.6b1 and later versions through 2.1 is not considered GPL-compatible by the FSF.
I haven't read the rest of the license in detail, but given that they didn't even get this one right, which has been a problem with one quite well-known project's license before, I don't have too high hopes...
File suit - 20:00
Fact Discovery - 22:30
Initial Report - 22:45
Opposing Experts' Reports - 23:00
Counter-reports - 23:15
Expert Discovery - 24:00
Dispositive Motions - 0:30
Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures - 4:00
Exchange of proposed jury instructions - 4:00
Special Attorney Conference and Settlement
Conference - 4:15
Final Pretrial Conference - 4:30
Filing of proposed jury instructions - 4:30
5-week jury trial - 5:00
Now that's a nice schedule!
(with apologies to Judge Kimball)
You are right that if I am a megacorp with millions of dollars I have a good chance at being able to license any particular patent for proprietary software development. I happen not to be a megacorp, and I happen to develop free software. I don't realistically have a chance to pay patent royalties even for a proprietary product, much less the royalties that would make the patent holder license their patent for all free software.
Yes, I can develop improvements and patent them, but not use them. GREAT! So not only can I not use the idea that the other person has patented, but nobody else can use my idea, either! (Except if they have the pockets to give me a good deal.) What a wonderful world!
It's much more of a problem that obvious things are patented -- for example, a LOT of webshop features that you would think obvious have been the subject of patents that have been issued by the European Patent Office.
The point of the directive, as the EU parliament made it, was to outlaw all software patents. The point of the directive as the council made it (and the ones who actually wrote it are the patent office officials) is to allow all those patents in practice.
My guess is that they were made by someone from the free software camp who managed to attend the meeting, but I don't actually know. Someone else, maybe?
Besides, what kind of dorky attitude is it that nobody should be allowed to build on an idea for twenty years?!? Imagine that somebody has had a trivial idea and you get the same idea from elsewhere, and build something much larger on it. Well, you cannot use your ideas for the next twenty years if the first person has patented it.
I'm disappointed that the German government voted for after initially saying they'd at least abstain -- my understanding is that they could have held up the process if they had at least abstained. :-(
Mmmmm... Do you really need to ENDIF after the kaboom? ;-)